We know that the AKP representatives put emphasis on the closure possibility; this is the topic of conversations among them and among us.

- 20 / 05 / 2008 13:42

Eyüp Can, editor-in-chief of daily Referans, nowadays comes up with striking news stories. Last week, he was at Çankaya Presidential Residence for the “Europe Day” reception hosted by President Abdullah Gül. As he remained in the capital, Can met officials and wrote his article “The New Ankara Scenario.” His piece became a source for plenty of comments about the days to come in Turkey.

  The following week, he went to Ankara again, this time to meet Haşim Kılıç, chief justice of the Constitutional Court. We read Can's article titled “Haşim Kılıç's Hope” in daily Referans the other day. All day long, phones did not stop ringing. 

  The fate of the AKP:

  Can keeps his sources; even does not make any referrals to any of his sources in the articles. The following sentence, his quote from Kılıç, was enough to cause a stir among “news and comments speculators:”

  “Eyüp Bey, believe me you'll see that both our democracy and laicism and law will come out of this process stronger regardless of the decision. And I assure you that this is not just a wish.”

  Since these remarks belonged to the president of the Constitutional Court, they naturally triggered speculation over a possible decision in the “closure case” filed against the government party. What could we understand from this statement? Does it mean that the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) will not be shut-down and that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will not be banned from politics?

  Some will read so but this is not necessarily the only meaning. The AKP grandies, according to the Reuters news agency, believe the opposite.

  With indisputable prestige in the international community, Reuters in a story by Paul Bendern on May 19 wrote: "The AKP will be closed, Erdoğan is expected to be banned and some other members too, said a government minister, who declined to be named. This view is shared by many in the cabinet."

  According to Reuters, another senior AKP member agreed that there was a high possibility that President Abdullah Gül would also be banned from belonging to a political party for five years.

  "I'm very worried for Turkey's future, but our fate lies in the hands of the 11 judges and we can only predict what they will decide. The mood is very dark in the party," the senior AKP member, who declined to be named, told Reuters. Afterwards, Cemil Çiçek, deputy prime minister, reacted to say that, “Whoever makes these statements, he is playing a fortune-teller. No one should act like the High Court member and make mischief.”

  We know that the AKP representatives put emphasis on the closure possibility; this is the topic of conversations among them and among us. We also know that a quite a few important AKP deputies say that since the case is political, it will certainly conclude in closure. Modification is needed in relevant constitutional articles, but Mr. prime minister doesn't want it, he believes this will cause tension.Besides, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan asked Çiçek to conduct the closure case period, we know this too. The said process aims to prevent the closure or, please pay attention to this, a “consensus” not to ban Erdoğan from politics.

  Everyone has already heard that “consensus” will be looked for with some institutions that might be influential with the Constitutional Court and with the leaders of such institutions.

  Since Reuters takes the responsibility, the story cannot be a “mistake” or be “denied.” So, could we read Çiçek's reaction as that he does not want his friends in the party to spoil the process? Yes, we should. However, both the government and majority of the party officials do not like the course that Erdoğan gives a nod of approval and Çiçek follows. We see this through the Reuters story.

  In this case, it is possible to read Kılıç's statement in Can's article that “our democracy, laicism and law will come out stronger and this is not just a wish” as exactly a “wish,” because at this point, all 11 members of the court do not know how they will decide on the issue when it is the time. They might be willing to see that “our democracy, laicism and law come out stronger” but how will this be? No one knows it, including the 11 members of the court. 

  External dynamics:

  Therefore, “external dynamics” continue to be important. In this sense, changing attitude of the United States regarding the “closure case” in the direction to have a similar turn to that of the European Union is especially critical.As a matter of fact Ali H. Aslan of the daily Zaman, one of the best observers in Washington, criticizes the baffling attitude of the Bush administration on the case, as follows:

  “I hope President Bush… very seriously takes the efforts to take the most successful democracy of the Islamic world down. But of course, he, even for once, needs to achieve closing his ears to his dear Vice President Dick Cheney who is intimate with Islamophobic anti-democratic lobbies.

  “Obviously, the U.S. Embassy in Ankara and the U.S. administration are not advised by tenable Turkey experts such as Mark Parris and Morton Abromowitz, former U.S. ambassadors to Turkey. We know very well by whom the officials are being confused or being advised. But the game plan of such circles who have influence over a small group of American officials responsible for Turkey by using the indifference of the American public opinion and who under the guise of  ‘neutrality policy' are making these officials just to watch destruction of democracy in Turkey. The reason is that independent candidates and big broadcasting bodies have started to notice the reluctance of the American administration about the future of democracy in Turkey.

  “Like I said before, the Washington Post's editorial fiercely criticizing U.S. State Secretary Condoleezza Rice for not showing any reaction to the closure case was effective. I also believe Matt Bryza's ‘we are neither pro-AKP nor anti-AKP' kind of remark he made last week is the product of the said editorial and that caused a stir in U.S. State Dept. Though it is inadequate, a small positive step from the team of Dan Fried, assistant state secretary, who had said ‘We are impartial' following the April 27 military e-memorandum last year which paralyzed the democratic process and largely influenced high judiciary.

  That, the American administration praising anti-democratic circles who happen to append the word "laicism" in front of the word "democracy," as though laicism is not part of the description of modern democracy by default, and who seem in act for laicism (but actually using laicism as an excuse) will be stalemated more. After the Washington Post siding with the Democratic Party, one of the other prestigious American dailies the Wall Street Journal published an article criticizing the Bush administration about the closure case in Turkey. I hope the administration noted this too.In the meantime, let's see what Joost Lagendijk, co-chairman of the Turkey-EU Joint Parliamentary Committee, is saying in his interview published in daily Milliyet. ‘I want Turkish public opinion to see how this process [closure case] was perceived in Europe. I am trying to reflect the atmosphere here on to Turkey because if the AKP is banned indeed, this will have its consequences. I have to explain this to Turkey,' he says in an attempt to describe what his mission is.

  “In the EU, there is a serious number of people who are saying ‘I wish the AKP gets closed, so we exclude Turkey' and they are waiting to be happy. They will use this [closure] as a stick to beat up Turkey. In order to defy this, we, friends of Turkey, actually need to be very creative indeed.” (End of Ali Aslan quote)

  Eleven members of the Constitutional Court are expected to carefully follow the foreign press and statements issued by foreign envoys as much as the indictment that the top prosecutor of the Court of Appeals complied by using the articles of AKP opponent columnists and news stories. That's how our democracy can be strengthened at the end of this process.